Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that city/state information for the visitor is returned, but does not clarify the meaning of 'borda', whether this is a safe read operation, or any other behavioral constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and contains no filler words, which is a form of conciseness. However, it is so terse that key context such as 'borda' is left undefined, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description at least names the expected output domain (city/UF), but without an output schema, annotations, or explanation of 'borda', the agent still lacks important context about what this tool actually returns and how it behaves.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate because this dimension is trivially satisfied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource and output fields ('visitor' and 'city/UF'), which prevents a pure tautology from the tool name 'local'. However, it lacks an explicit verb and the term 'borda' is ambiguous, leaving the tool's exact purpose unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as search, ia_filters, or get_cnpj. An agent would have to infer that this is a geolocation lookup from the name and the 'cidade/UF' reference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.